When you disagree with a peer reviewer…. Dear all, a friend of mine asked me what to do when a peer reviewer has misunderstood something in your paper or simply claims something that is incorrect. How do you tackle that in your response to the editor? I go to great length to accommodate the views of the peer reviewers (and please him/her) but I do not lie and if I feel that the peer reviewer is incorrect, I try to state that. Here is what I usually write. Please feel free to copy. 1. ”We would respectfully disagree with a crucial comment by this reviewer. This is that xx% of patients with ”disease A” in in some areas of Sweden are now diagnosed without test B’. This comment appears to have no reference point and no such information has been published. ” 2. Regarding the request to change Tables that we were already happy with: ”If the editor disagrees with out decision to keep the tables as they are, we ask for more detailed instructions on how to revise the Tables” 3. ”We would prefer not to carry out … as this was not part of our a priori analysis plan” 4. ”We agree that there have been reports of… however evidence as to the importance of XX is mixed and we therefore…” 5. ”The best use of the terms xx and yy has been a matter of debate in the scientific community. We understand the reviewer’s concern but would prefer to keep the definitions as written as this is the consensus of the group” 6 ”We feel this Table facilitates for the readers and would prefer to keep it. If the editor however wants us to omit it, we are ready to do so.” 7. ”Should however, the editor require that we …., we will do so”
Posted on: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 07:02:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015